Obstruction Obstructed.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIV, Issue 208, 2 September 1893, Page 4 (Supplement)

Obstruction Obstructed.

An Historic Night is the Commons,

Great Speeches.

(FROM OUR LONDON CORRESPONDENT.)

London, July 7. Thk ' application of the gag '—as the Con Bervatives term Mr Gladstone's resolute expedient for defeating obstruction, anl^ hurrying on Home Rule—was the occasion of a field night in the Commons last Friday. Loaders on both sides were on their mettle, and the ppeechn? in consequence rose high above ths average. Mr Balfour's proved, perhaps, the most effective from n debating point of view, but the 6.0. M. and Mr Chamberlain jeemod more in oarnostj.. Mr Gladstone was in his erirameot mood.

Tho House fretted for an hour, whilsb Colonel Howard Vincent moved the adjournment in order to discuss bha advisability of a bank holiday on the Royal wedding day. Several bankers supported him on various grounds, bub Mr Asquith represented ib was not gener ally desired.

Mr Gladstono was in his grimmest fi o u ing mood, short, pointed defiZ, Bhtl' almost epigramtnatie-sternly 5™, 6n< 'hardest fact and statistic-' Ir med *<? pie with precedents and ancient " stances Those speeches Btand out v . difterenb class from that great J" of persuasive, argumentative and rX sophie epeechee, which are the crown J ' his work ; but they are none the lesser* eminent of their kind. For here he kt\ greatest living Parliamentarian, una proachable in experience, invincible £ tactic, inexhaustible in resource. Nothing could have been better £h», the opening, cheered to the echo by hi. followers. The Government had come £ two groat determinations—(l) no prorotr. tion or adjournment until both Sumilv.uwi the Home Kulo Bill were through! and Z the passage of ' importanb aDd weichio British measures' before the end of th year. A mighty programme for a man 2 83 ! But the party leapt at it in cheer after resounding cheer, and every f acn brightened at tho tightening of the strings And then he approached the closure resolution. ' It is with real pain,' said he-land here spoke tha old Tory in him-' t h a t t make the proposal.' But he had one sufficient motive—absolute necessity The present state of things could ■have only ono of two results -. entire confusion, or the abandonment of all the duties laid on the Government by tho country. And then he dealt with tha policyof the Opposition in precisely the right! spirit for a dignified warrior—not grumb. ling at it or blaming it, but simply recoff. nising it at its right value, as a deliberate effort to ' destroy the Bill in detail' Under present conditions they would succeed— i.e., tho Government would fail. And yefi ' to doal with this measure ig exactly the commission that we have received from our constituents,' and if they failed, as he said later, they would 'return a disgraced majority.' This they were determined not to do. Thon ha came to his precedents, and ho piled them on with an absolutely swamping prodigal. ityJ Briefly, ho showed that the closure motion left the House more than twice aa much time to deal with the question than id spent on Coercion—ls daya more than tha Reform Bill of 1831, or the Land Bill 0 £ 1881. He ended with a strong insistence on the point that the real question was whether tlie majority should prevail? 'If not our institutions, instead of being the glory of the laud, are a mockery and. a sham.'

Unfortunately for tho drama of the situation, the combatant choson to meet this powerful speech was Mr Balfour, and nob Mr Chamberlain. The latter was so obviou«ly enraged by Mr Gladstone's mova that he would not have felb that tho 1887 analogy knocked all the logic oub of his position. But Mr Balfour rose in one of his most lethargic and academic moods, refus« ing to recognise any crisis or to give his party any rallying cry—one of those Balfourian moods in which the sense of irony seems to mingle with a passion for subtle distinctions — a mood fatal to a party leader, whose note should be clear and simplo. Tho whole speech resolved itself into two efforts—(l) An effort to show that the Home Rule Bill was bigger than any other Bill ever passed in England (' What about the Acb of Union ?' from Mr Gladstone), and (2) a laboured attempt to. show the greater urgency of tho Crimes Act in 1887. Over these efforts he lavished— rather, wasted — endless eubblety. Tha only strong part of the speech was the end, when he went through tho clauses of tha resolution, and argued their injustice. ' One night to decide whether we are to bo masters in our own House?' 'No second reading for the financial clauses.1 'Wo are not allowed to have our voico heard while you destroy the institutions of England !' And so he ended a greab and impressive speech. Mr Chamberlain delivered a biting speech at ten o'clock, and the debate continued until four o'clock tbia morning when a compromise was reached, the debate to finish to-day.